|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
Prisoners
of time Cricket’s
‘Sikander’ demands his Muqaddar
Injuries and money
Squash’s Olympic dream
US Open 2013: Djokovic,
Nadal or Murray? Asia
Cup: A brief history
Prisoners of time In the small world of cricket it is a slightly odd record when seen in isolation – Pakistan, after all, has never won a Test series in three of the five non-Asian venues By Hassan Cheema The
cancellation of Pakistan’s Test series against West Indies reminded me
of the fact that Pakistan has never won a Test series in the West
Indies; or in South Africa and Australia for that matter. This record
outside Asia is particularly poor for a country that is proud of being a
major Test playing nation, and of producing great bowlers more often
than not (the obvious requirement for winning away from home). In the
small world of cricket it is a slightly odd record when seen in
isolation — Pakistan, after all, has never won a Test series in three
of the five non-Asian venues. But it’s not really that surprising
considering what the neighbors have to offer; Sri Lanka’s record is
even worse, and India until the last decade had only ever won one series
in these three countries as well (in 1971 India beat a West Indies team
1-0 in a five match series; that Windies team had won two of its
previous seventeen matches). Pakistan’s record in
the West Indies, on closer inspection, is pretty easy to understand.
From the fifty years following their first Test in 1952, Pakistan’s
peaks and troughs were mirrored by those of the West Indies (with the
early to mid-60s being an exception), except that the West Indies’
peaks were just a little too high for Pakistan. Pakistan have had the
chance to win in the Caribbean but a combination of umpiring and lack of
ruthlessness (1988 and 2000), and the historical inability to start a
series off well (2005 and 2011) have meant that Pakistan are still in
the state they are in. Much more interesting
is Pakistan’s record in Australia. Neither team has had any mirroring
of performances; but rather Australia have been unbeatable for Asian
teams throughout its history. The exception being the 1980s, pretty much
Australia’s decade horriblis, a time that both Pakistan and India
could have capitalised on to get that oh so elusive series win. A
summary of it was provided by Peter English in an article for Cricinfo.
During the 1980s Australia were unable to deal with first the ageing and
then the retirements of the players that had brought them so much
success in the 1970s (Lillee, Thompson, Marsh and G.Chappell all retired
in 1984 and 1985). Between late 1984 and 1988 they failed to win any of
the eight Test series they played in. Pakistan managed to beat them both
times they toured to the country during that decade (including a clean
sweep in 1982). Pakistan only toured once to Australia during their
times in the doldrums though. In 1981/82 the Aussie team was not
completely in the capper, and Pakistan’s later tour in 1990, the team
had recovered under Allan Border and managed to beat Pakistan 1-0. Thus
Pakistan’s only chance was in 1983/84. That Pakistan series
serves as a reminder of how the problems of the time can serve to
undermine the whole of history. Twenty eight years on from that series
Pakistan is further away from a series win in Australia than it was back
then. That series is also an illustration of all that is wrong with
Pakistan cricket. Nostalgia, of course, washes away the sins of the pat
— Pakistan’s great teams shone not because of the PCB (or the BCCP)
but in spite of them. The Wisden report for that tour illustrates how
much of an omnishambles Pakistan’s cricket has been. The selectors had
named Zaheer Abbas for the tour (Imran had been unable to bowl for the
previous six months, including in the county season and the 1983 World
Cup). On behest of the BCCP head Imran was selected as captain. Imran
was only able to play two of the five Test matches, and unable to bowl
in them. Halfway through the tour, Zaheer Abbas was appointed as the
captain. Imran’s injury was so severe that he was unable to play Test
cricket for over eighteen months after this tour. So the random
captaincy changes and subsequent politics were given fuel by the board
itself. But that wasn’t all. Sarfraz Nawaz was also not going to be
taken along for the tour (he was in his mid-30s by this time), but
Pakistan being Pakistan, Sarfraz was absent from the plane not because
of his age, but because he was banned for six months for criticizing the
selectors. Of course, poor performance in the first two Tests meant that
Sarfraz was included in the side for the third Test; and yet board
officials complain about player power. With an old Sarfraz, a hobbled
Imran and little else to call on (Wasim was still a year away from
debut), Pakistan came home with a 2-0 loss and having missed a
once-in-a-generation chance. Between the tour to
England in 1982 until the series away to the West Indies in early 1993
when the first post-Imran fissures started hurting the team, Pakistan
only lost 10 of 80 matches; they also lost only 3 of 24 series, and none
outside Australasia. This is the time that
should have served as the righting of the wrongs from Pakistan’s
cricket records. The team never visited South Africa during those years
(for obvious reasons); it only toured the West Indies once, where the
players and the fans could argue exceedingly about being robbed of a
series by the umpires (as they have done for the best part of twenty
five years now); but the players and administrators of the country have
no one to blame but themselves for never winning in Australia. They had
their moment in 1983/84. They failed to grasp it. Considering that
Intikhab Alam was the manager of the team on that tour, that Pakistan
suffered from politicking regarding captaincy, player power, including
injured players, and taking names and reputations over performance or
fitness, it is pretty evident that we have learnt nothing in the three
decades since. hasncheema@yahoo.com
Cricket’s
‘Sikander’ demands his Muqaddar Pakistan
cricket is fast turning out to be a drama that will challenge ‘Kyunkay
Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahoo Thi’ in all-time ratings. It just seems to have
the same twists and turns, the conspiracies, the bitching and, yes, the
sheer monotony of it all. The story just doesn’t progress as the
episodes do. In Pakistan
cricket’s case the same problem that has dogged it for years is on
show today; one player taking on the cricket board. I eventually see
these characters taking on the Supreme Court soon. And when they do, the
parliamentarians and the institutional heads, will look like such
amiable people to the CJ. “But your honour, how can I implement your
order when I can’t read it, let alone understand it.” I can imagine if it is
a senior player being unfairly and unceremoniously dumped. Yes, when
Javed Miandad was called in back in late 1993 and told to retire, he had
every reason to go public with the treatment he had been given. Imagine
a bunch of bureaucrats telling one of the greatest batsman of Pakistan
to go home a year after he had led his country to a series win against
England in England, only the second time by this country over 38 years
of playing on their soil. But what happened in
Lahore on Wednesday was not too dissimilar to what happened in Islamabad
last week. One seriously upset man taking on the management in public
view. Umar ‘Sikander’
Akmal hell bent on proving who’s the boss. It wouldn’t have been
surprising had he called up the Chief of Army to intervene. Really, you
can expect this from these characters who believe the Pakistan cricket
is their birthright; any omission from their ‘property’ tantamount
to illegal eviction from their grandfather’s land. I have little sympathy
for the manner in which the PCB hunts out new ways to shoot itself in
the foot. By now one should think it must be the largest caterpillar in
the world if it’s still walking, rather crawling. But in this case I
think they have handled the issue with sense and sensibility. And dare I
say with maturity and empathy. They have neither
confronted Umar nor have they unleashed vitriolic in retaliation though
I do miss the scowling-faced counter punches of Ijaz Butt: ‘O banday
da putr banyon, warna ulta latka deyanga stadium dee chut say’. In fact PCB has shown
immense tolerance to the way the jumping jack has been bouncing up and
down since walking out of the airport like a politician from Adiala
jail, promising to prove his innocence and the greatest wrong ever done
to the innocent. They have simply taken
the punches from the petulant boxer and gone about their business of
looking after the team interests and above all, the wellbeing of Umar
himself. Whatever happened on that flight to Barbados will eventually
reveal itself over time, with several versions available, including the
unedited version and the director’s cut. But the PCB acted rightly and
swiftly in pulling out Umar from the tour. If they hadn’t, and
whatever hit Umar would have reoccurred on the field, God forbid, PCB
would have been hung out to dry for sending a player without any medical
check-up after he had had a reported seizure. There are some voices
asking why PCB has not had him checked by now considering the incident
happened last Wednesday. Well, for one thing, Umar arrived some five
days later. He was rushed for an MRI same day and his reports arrived
the next day, which was the day a wicketkeeper had to be sent to
Zimbabwe or else we would have become a joke to field without a
wicket-keeper. Wouldn’t have been surprising considering how Pakistan
cricket is run, but still unlikely. No physician will see
a patient without medical reports; neither does he drop all patients and
stand outside the door of his clinic peering into the distance as to
when the lord cricketer shall arrive for his check up, escorted by
blaring police mobiles and all. Whether by now Umar
Akmal has been cleared or whether the physician has expressed concern
over his physical condition and report is not the main question here.
The issue is how in living daylights can a cricketer of his little
standing (forget the great talent, etc), a few years into his green cap,
has the temerity to challenge a decision which has been taken based on
his physician’s report from Barbados. PCB is caught between the devil
and the deep blue sea. If Umar is cleared, PCB will be drowned in the
stories floating around; if the problem is found to be genuine, PCB will
be watched very closely for what disciplinary action they take for the
indiscipline and the innuendos released by Umar. Meanwhile, one asks:
what is the big deal in missing out on a few matches to have himself
cleared medically? If you say possessiveness for his place for reasons
very clear, you will not be far wrong. Cricketers today are fighting
over places in the cricket team like fat ladies in a fire sale with
limited stocks. It as if the sky will fall if they don’t get the polka
dot skirt. ‘It’s the money, stupid’ will shout the pragmatist. You
lose your place, you lose the match fee. Or maybe I am terribly wrong.
It is a bit unimaginable isn’t it? There are reports that
Adnan Akmal’s name was flashed on the TV screens on Wednesday evening,
as the man going instead of little brother Umar. Apparently he even told
Sarfraz that he can stop packing. Funny, because Sarfaraz’s visa had
already arrived and his name had been officially announced earlier as
the replacement. I wouldn’t put it
past one of the Akmal bradraan loyalists to have sent his name to the
channel. ‘Mr. Caretaker Chairman, we have a situation. We were going
to send Sarfraz but Adnan’s name has been announced on media. It would
unnecessarily lead to bad PR if PCB were to negate this. Might as well
let him go instead.’ Thankfully better
sense prevailed in what I equate to Faulty Towers, with a houseful of
John Cleese like characters getting into the most stupid but hilarious
situations imaginable. Yes, this time the Gaddafi Stadium did not budge,
maybe even worried of the fallout considering there would be ethical
overtones: ‘Injustices and step motherly happen to the Karachi
lads’. Whatever, credit goes to PCB for holding on to their nerve.
Having said that you can’t put it past them to declare Umar Akmal fit
and send him for the ODI’s, calling back Sarfraz after the two T20s. I hope they don’t.
Two T20I’s where he is unlikely to bat for more than 5-6 overs, if at
all, would be grossly unfair. Likewise being punished for erring once or
twice over 40 overs considering Kamran Akmal is being given half a
lifetime to learn how to catch the ball. Just ask Shoaib Akhtar. Sohaib121&gmail.com
Injuries and
money Injuries to
leading cricketers are a common phenomenon these days. Such injuries
take place because of mismanagement by the relevant boards or the
players themselves. Players are human
beings, not machines, and need rest after excessive cricket. Throughout
the year, Test series, ODI tournaments, county cricket, Twenty20 and now
different leagues are played and there is not much of a gap. Fast bowlers receive
more injuries; Umar Gul, Shane Watson, Tim Bresnan, Chris Tremlett and
Pet Cummins are the most recent examples. But huge financial benefits
encourage players to participate in every game. Not only fast bowlers,
but batsmen also are facing fitness problems. The names of Kevin
Pietersen, Graeme Smith, Jacques Kallis and Michael Clarke come to mind
immediately. Recently during the
Caribbean Premier League Pakistani batsman Umar Akmal suffered a health
problem which has yet to be clearly identified. According to some, he
suffered epilepsy fits, but later it was claimed by some others that low
blood pressure and lack of sleep took toll on his body as he had a very
busy schedule in the CPL. The PCB is going to
get Umar Akmal examined by neurologists. On his arrival in Lahore, the
23-year-old Umar claimed that he was fit and that the media had reported
about his health incorrectly. Umar also practised at
the National Cricket Academy to prove his fitness for the Zimbabwe tour.
This whole episode
confirms that our batsmen are not fully fit and their fitness level and
stamina are not up to international standards. Now the question is:
Why do the players want to appear in every Twenty20 league while they
complain about too many international assignments? Of course, money is
the most important factor. If the money on offer is good they will be
willing to go wherever and whenever their sponsors want them to go. So
there’s no point in complaining about “too much cricket”. At least senior
players should withdraw from Twenty20 cricket. But promises of huge sums
of money make it difficult for them to resist such offers. Players are getting
handsome amounts from the board after signing central contracts,
receiving millions as match fees, daily allowance and winning bonus. The Pakistan Cricket
Board (PCB) should take notice of the players’ excessive cricket for
counties and their Twenty20 commitments. They are our national assets
and the board is paying them salary and other benefits. It also incurs
heavy expenditure for their treatment when required just to keep them
fit for national duties. But when the team needs a 100 percent fit
player he is found injured and not available for the national side. Many players don’t
take part in domestic cricket for “personal reasons” but always
remain available for money-making matches abroad even in non-Test
playing countries. Senior players should
skip matches against low-ranked sides so that they may remain fit and
fresh for the tougher oppositions. The second advantage
of the senior players’ exclusion would be that junior players would
gain some international experience. Many a times, Pakistanís
cricket authorities have tried young players against good oppositions,
which resulted in their losing confidence. The medical panel of
the PCB must take notice of the players’ recurring injuries. The panel
should set a high standard for the players and when a player is injured
after a short time again the medical panel and the board must take
notice and find out the reasons. khurrams87@yahoo.com
Squash’s
Olympic dream September 8,
2013 could turn out to be a day of ecstasy for squash. But it could also
turn out to be a day of agony for this growing sport. It’s the day
when the International Olympic Committee (IOC) chiefs will gather in
Buenos Aires to decide whether squash, wrestling or baseball/softball
will be part of the Olympic Games 2020. Squash is the only new
sport vying to become a part of the elite Olympic family. It has been
yearning for a spot on the world’s greatest sporting extravaganza
since 1986 when it made its first bid for a place in the 1992 Olympic
Games in Barcelona. For the last ten years, the international squash
fraternity has been campaigning really hard for what it believes is
squash’s rightful place in the Olympics. Ask Jahangir Khan and
Pakistan’s squash legend will tell you that the various governing
bodies of the game including World Squash Federation (WSF) have left no
stone unturned in their Olympic campaign. Having served as WSF president
for several years, Jahangir was at the helm of a global campaign for
squash’s inclusion in the Olympic Games. Top squash stars
including Egypt’s Ramy Ashour, Malaysia’s Nicol David and
England’s James Willstrop have taken squash’s message global and in
the process have garnered the support of top celebrities and famed
sports stars like Roger Federer and Andy Murray. In the lead up to
IOC’s Buenos Aires session, it seems that squash has a solid case.
Unlike the past when it was considered to be a minority appeal sport,
squash has developed a better image with the presence of millions of
active players in 185 countries of the world. The total number of squash
courts around the globe has exceeded 50,000. This gladiatorial
sport reflects the essence of the Olympic spirit and has been described
as ‘world’s healthiest sport’ by the influential Forbes Magazine.
It has a 100 percent doping-free record and there is gender parity in
squash with many of the major international tournaments carrying equal
prize purse for men and women. It is blessed by the
presence of elite athletes like Nicol David, who says she will happily
exchange her record seven World Open title for an Olympic gold. “Squash could mean
new nations on the Olympic medal podium. My own country, Malaysia, has
never won gold at the Games,” says David. “If I can stay
healthy perhaps I can make Olympic history for Malaysia in 2020. “I would happily
trade my record seven World Open titles for an Olympic gold,” she
says. Talk to N.
Ramachandran, the World Squash Federation (WSF), and you would find that
the sport has made enough leaps and bounds in recent years to become
good enough to join the Games. “As a new sport,
squash would be low cost and easy to integrate into the Games with just
64 athletes. Squash could share a venue if required, or be located to
showcase an iconic backdrop ñ and we have a track record of doing
exactly this, such as in front of the Pyramids, in Grand Central Station
in New York and alongside Hong Kong Harbour,” says Ramachandran. “Squash also has
been on a journey of innovation in recent years, especially in the way
it is broadcast and presented. State of the art all glass courts,
referee video review, lighting and music have radically enhanced the
spectator experience.” A sheer lack of ample
TV coverage has dogged squash in the past but Ramachandran believes that
a series of innovations has helped the sport overcome this hurdle. “Some of the most
radical changes have occurred in the way Squash is now broadcast with
innovations such as multiple camera angles, super slow mo replays and
super HD. We also have our own production team — SquashTV — which
broadcasts live more than 300 games a year to ensure consistent, high
quality broadcast output,” he says. “We are seeing a
growing broadcast reach, working with global broadcasters. We also have
TV agreements in place for all our major events that cover every
continent. “We have developed
internationally. We are a genuinely global sport played in 185 countries
by many millions across the world. And we are a growing sport in regions
such as South America, central Europe, China, and India. We are also
growing in the more traditional squash areas including the United States
where we have almost one million players. The order books of court
manufacturers are the fullest they have ever been. “Squash would offer
genuine medal opportunities to a growing number of countries, and the
prospect of new nations on the medal podium. This is because squash is a
sport where all five continents have produced both male and female world
champions,” he stresses. One of the most
articulate campaigners for squash is James Willstrop, a former world
number one. In a recent newspaper article, the Englishman wrote:
“Squash is amongst the great sporting tests of all round athleticism
and skill. It is one of the most popular participation sports, played in
200 countries around the world, because it is easy to take part and
there is no need for fancy equipment. I learnt by simply playing for
hours on end on Sunday afternoons against brick walls.” Ramy Ashour, the
reigning world number one from Egypt, is already dreaming about making
his country proud in the Olympics. “I really do hope
and pray that this journey leads me to the Olympic Games in 2020, where
I can make my country proud and win gold for Egypt,” he says. Squash champions like
Ashour have waited too long for their place in the sun which is why it
is time that the sport is awarded an Olympic spot. “During our 10 year
campaign to join the Olympic Games, we have never stopped listening,
learning and innovating. On 8 September, we hope to demonstrate to the
IOC that Squash is a sport that represents the future, not the past. I
hope, this time, that we are given the chance to shine on the world’s
biggest sporting stage,” says the WSF boss. Khalid Hussain is
Editor Sports of The News, Karachi Khalid.hussain@thenews.com.pk
US Open
2013: Djokovic, Nadal or Murray? The final
major of the year has mustered a multitude of subplots and thrown them
into an intriguing mix, as tennis aficionados gear up for what promises
to be a scintillating fortnight. This piece is being scribed before the
draw and so we won’t be able to take a closer look at the matchups, a
lot of which could throw in potential humdingers even in the first week.
In the recent past it’s been the Big Four — Novak Djokovic, Rafael
Nadal, Andy Murray and Roger Federer; the winners of all majors barring
one since Marat Safin won the Australian Open in 2005 — that are
considered to be vying for the crown. However, with Federer’s recent
slump that has seen his ranking plummet to seven — an 11-year low —
we might now have to think of the current top three in men’s tennis as
the Big Three, and the ones who’d be sharing the majors between them
in the near future. The Big Three was on
the brink of being slashed down to Big Two, with Nadal’s injury
troubles putting question marks over both his longevity and his
relevance as a title contender outside of clay. Nadal got off to a
blistering start after his return from a seven-month injury absence in
February, running off to a 43-2 record till June that saw him win seven
of the nine tournaments he played in, including Roland Garros, and being
the finalist in the other two. Then Wimbledon happened. Nadal’s first round
loss against Steve Darcis at SW19 was the earliest exit that the
Spaniard has faced in a major in his entire career. And his hesitant
movement and reluctance to put pressure on his knees throughout the
match brought his fitness into doubt once again. When 43-2 changed to
43-3, all of a sudden those numbers looked heavily skewed towards clay.
Even so, the early exit might have worked wonders for Nadal by giving
him more than a month’s worth of rest, following which his performance
on the North American hard courts as been as dominant as it’s ever
been. Nadal has won both ATP
Masters 1000 titles on hard following Wimbledon, at Cincinnati and
Montreal and is now 15-0 this season on hard courts. His clay-esque
numbers on hard this year has seen many pundits put the Spaniard as the
favourite for the US Open, especially since he’s beaten Djokovic,
Federer (twice) and Del Potro on hard en route to three of his five ATP
Masters 1000 titles this year. Nadal does look like the man to beat in
Flushing Meadows. However, it’s hard
to not put Djokovic or Murray — who have played the final of three of
the last four majors — among the favourites for any major, let alone a
hard court one. Djokovic is the current number one, and despite having a
mixed season considering his towering standards in recent years, he is
still the best hard court player in the world when he’s at the peak of
his powers. Murray is the holder of three of the last five major
accolades, including the Olympic Gold, and will have the first taste of
being the defending champion at a major. Over the past year or so Murray
has easily been the best player at majors, and had it not been for a
wretched showing at the ATP Masters 1000 events, he’d be the number
one player in the world right now. Djokovic’s defeats
against Nadal in close contests on the clay of Roland Garros and on hard
at Montreal might have dented some of his confidence but in a
best-of-five-set encounter on the fast hard courts of New York, the Serb
would still fancy his chances against the Spaniard. An intriguing factor
that ensures that this Nadal-Djokovic-Murray triangle doesn’t have its
proper shape as things stand, is the fact that Murray and Nadal have not
played against each other for almost two years now. Nadal might have a
daunting 13-5 record against Murray, but he hasn’t faced Murray 2.0,
who has been beating the likes of Federer and Djokovic quite easily of
late. While on paper a Murray-Nadal matchup might seem favourable to
Nadal, when one juxtaposes the respective repertoires, we still can’t
predict what might happen when the two go head-to-head the next time
they meet. Nadal’s blazing run
in North America has seen him usurp Murray’s Number 2 ranking and that
means that Djokovic and Nadal would be in opposite halves of the draw,
with Murray facing a potential semifinal encounter with one of them. The
one who doesn’t get Murray in his half could look at their final
opponent having had to face a potential grueling five-setter in the
semifinal. However, these prognostications are also dependent on how the
dark horses perform. The likes of Juan
Martin Del Potro, Tomas Berdych and Federer are all facing potential
quarterfinals with one of the Big Three or David Ferrer. And all of them
are more than capable of beating the top three players on any given day,
and even going all the way as well. Of these, Del Potro can be dubbed
the favourite outside of Djokovic, Nadal and Murray. Even though if
Federer plays anything like he did against Nadal in Cincinnati he would
in with a shout for the title as well. Outside of this group of players
Wimbledon semifinalist Jerzy Janowicz and Cincinnati finalist John Isner
can get a big scalp or two, and maybe even eye a semifinal berth, if the
draw opens up for them. The thing with hard
court majors is that it’s as level a playing field in terms of the
surface as you get. Anyone among the big guns who can string a two-week
run, can go all the way, as five different US Open winners in the last
five years reflects. The draw will obviously play a pivotal part with
Ferrer being a weaker link in the top four and Del Potro and Federer
lurking around in the quarters. Picture this: defending champion Murray
might have to beat Del Potro or Federer in the quarters, and then take
down Djokovic and Nadal in back-to-back matches for glory. The same goes
for Nadal or Djokovic. While Murray is the
form player in majors, and Nadal is playing the best hard court tennis
of his life, one would still go with Djokovic to win in New York. He
hasn’t won a major outside Australia since 2011, and probably needs it
more than anyone else to justify his tag of being the number one in the
world. Djokovic to beat Nadal is another pulsating five-setter in the
final. khulduneshahid@gmail.com
Asia
Cup: A brief history It is a
strange fact that the continent which till early 1980s had won more
hockey Olympic golds and World Cup titles than the rest of the world
combined had no exclusive hockey competition of its own. The Asian hockey
nations met in a regional meeting only during the Asian Games which is
of course a multi-disciplinary sporting event. This anomaly was
noticed by a person no less than Rene Frank, the then president of
International Hockey Federation (FIH) and he expressed his feelings in
no uncertain terms. During a meeting of FIH, Rene Frank told A I S Dara
of Pakistan, vice president of FIH, “not to talk about Asian hockey as
only seven out of the 19 member countries of the Asian Hockey Federation
(AHF) play regular hockey.” When Dara and Brig MH
Atif got elected as president and vice-president of the AHF,
respectively, they planned to boost hockey activities in Asia. The AHF executive
committee rightly dedicated the First Asia Cup to the memory of Dara who
expired in January 1981. Dara was the main brain behind the idea of the
Asia Cup. The first Asia Cup was
scheduled to be played in Lahore, but the venue was later shifted to
Karachi due to persistent wet weather in Lahore. It is a strange
coincidence that the first World Cup was also originally allotted to
Lahore in 1971. But then there were political reasons for it to be moved
out of not only Lahore but even Pakistan. It was staged in Barcelona.
Lahore eventually got the opportunity to host the World Cup after 19
years in 1990. Lahore was again named
as the host city for the fifth edition in 1999. However, the city was
unlucky for the second time as it was again deprived of the opportunity
under bizarre circumstances: many of the participating countries refused
to travel to Pakistan, citing security fears in the wake of the October
1999 takeover of the government by the Army. As a result, the 1999
edition was shifted to Kuala Lumpur. In 2007, Pakistan had
initially decided to skip the Asia Cup for no logical reason. The
argument given was that the team was in a rebuilding stage so it would
not participate in all the tourneys. The federation
justified the decision by saying that the other major hockey nations
like Australia and Germany absent themselves from Champions Trophy off
and on. But it was ridiculous to equate an annual tournament like
Champions Trophy with a title tournament like Asia Cup which is held
once in four years. The winner of Asia Cup is bestowed with the title of
Asian Champions for the next four years. Later, under the pressure of
the press and former hockey stalwarts, the federation buckled and
entered the national team. This year, Malaysia
will be hosting the tournament for the fourth time, in Ipoh. The 2013
Asia Cup has gained immense importance. After the conclusion of the
World League semi-finals, only Korea among the Asian countries has been
able to make a direct qualification for the next year’s World Cup. And only the winner of
the Asia Cup will make it to the World Cup. For both Pakistan (four time
winners of the World Cup) and India (winners once) it is the last
chance. Facts & Feats: In 2007, India
scored 57 goals to create a new record for a single edition of the Asia
Cup for any team. The previous record was Pakistan’s tally of 51 goals
in the inaugural tournament (1982). In 2007, India
defeated South Korea 7-2 in the final, a record margin of victory in any
final. Pakistan, Malaysia and
India share the record for the highest number of goals in a single
match. In the 1993 event, both Pakistan and Malaysia defeated Thailand
by an identical margin of 20-0. In 2007, India defeated Sri Lanka with
the same scoreline. Goalkeeper Shahid Ali
Khan has the unique distinction of being the member of Pakistan team in
all the three Asia cup victories. Centre-forward Hasan
Sardar with 26 goals in two editions is the overall top scorer for any
team in Asia Cup history. In a single edition,
the record for the top scorer for any team is 16 goals shared by two
Pakistanis: Hasan Sardar in 1982 Asia Cup and Sohail Abbas in 1999. Hasan Sardar also has
the distinction of scoring the first hat-trick in the history of the
Asia Cup (v Sri Lanka in 1982). Inside-left Haneef
Khan scored Pakistan’s first ever goal in the Asia cup (v Sri Lanka). Pakistan lost to South
Korea 0-4 in the semi final of the 1993 Asia Cup in Hiroshima, a city
built on the nuclear ravaged rubbles. For Pakistan it was no less than a
calamity as they achieved many dubious firsts. It was Pakistan’s first
ever defeat in Asia Cup (after 24 matches). It failed to finish in top
two in a continental contest for the first time. Pakistan lost to an
Asian country by a margin exceeding three goals for the first time. In the 1999 edition,
Pakistan had the cup well within its grasp, as in the final against
South Korea, Pakistan led 4-2 well into the second half. But the Koreans
showed a remarkable recovery: they not only equalised but also gained
the title by netting three quick goals to win the final 5-4. In the 2003 final,
Pakistan and India were locked at 2-2 with a few minutes to go. All the four goals had
been scored off penalty corners. However India suddenly exploded and
blasted two excellent field goals in the dying minutes to lift the Asia
Cup for the first time. But what happened in
2007 was unbelievable. It was the first time that Pakistan failed to
qualify for the semi-final of a continental tournament. They finished a
miserable 6th. In the last edition
(2009), the final between Pakistan and Korea was goalless until the 66th
minute when Kim Byung Hoon converted a penalty corner to enable Korea to
lift the Cup for the third time. ijaz62@hotmail.com Roll of Honour Edition
Host First
Second
Third 1st (1982)
Karachi (Pakistan)
Pakistan
India China 2nd (1985)
Dacca (Bangladesh) Pakistan
India South
Korea 3rd (1989)
New Delhi (India)
Pakistan
India South
Korea 4th (1993)
Hiroshima (Japan)
South Korea India
Pakistan 5th (1999)
Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia)
South Korea Pakistan
India 6th (2003)
Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia)
India Pakistan
S.Korea
7th (2007)
Chennai (India)
India South
Korea Malaysia 8th (2009)
Kuantan (Malaysia) South
Korea Pakistan
China |
|
